U.S. Ranks Dead Last In Overall Social Spending

Jobless Men Keep GoingRay Medeiros writes on PoliticusUSA:

This report from the OECD and The Business Insider, could not have come at a more crucial time in our national debate regarding the federal budget and the course the Republicans have chosen to take.

The conservative pundits are trying to frame this debate along the lines that the deficit and debt of the United States was created by the liberal, nanny state programs. This is an outright lie they have drummed into the heads of the American people. Unfortunately, some of the pundits are trusted sources of information for millions of people.

The United States currently ranks thirty-fourth(34th) out of the thirty-four members of the OECD in regards to spending on social programs, DEAD LAST.

The amount the United States spends is currently only 7.2% of our gross domestic product on programs that make up our social contract with the American people.

Read More: PoliticusUSA

, , , , , , ,

  • JakeMasters

    “The amount the United States spends is currently only 7.2% of our gross domestic product on programs that make up our social contract with the American people.”

    The “social contract” is only for government to protect rights to life, liberty, and property–nothing else. Redistribution of property is a violation of the social contract, not its fulfillment. And since government can only spend money that it taxes directly (or indirectly via inflationary policies), so-called “social-spending” is a violation of the social contract.

  • JakeMasters

    “The amount the United States spends is currently only 7.2% of our gross domestic product on programs that make up our social contract with the American people.”

    The “social contract” is only for government to protect rights to life, liberty, and property–nothing else. Redistribution of property is a violation of the social contract, not its fulfillment. And since government can only spend money that it taxes directly (or indirectly via inflationary policies), so-called “social-spending” is a violation of the social contract.

    • BuzzCoastin

      When the “government” stops redistributing property to the wealthy and their corporations through bailouts, tax breaks, incentive payments and special regulations, then I think you might have an argument. Right now We the People are very far from quid pro quo compared with the wealthy when it comes to government largess.

      I never entered into any social contract with any government, yet every time I hear from the government its looking for a handout or a hand.

      The fact that the “richest” nation on Earth spends more on weapons than on welfare and education indicates that the priorities of “wee the people” are not being attended to.

      I’ll bet you’re one of those new state department social bots Jake.

      • Alis

        You and 5by5, and people like you are the very reason I fucking love this website.

    • razzlebathbone

      What you refer to as “redistribution” is referred to by civilized people as “taking care of our own”.

      Throwing your weakest and most vulnerable to the wolves is not civilization. It is barbarism.

      • SouthPawPolitico

        Spot on!

        End of story(sadly enough). The subject of the redistribution of wealth(“accomplished” in the form of a graduated income tax) and economic justice(“accomplished” thru the creation of the welfare state, Social Security Insurance, unemployment insurance, Medicaid & Medicare) is not on anyone’s agenda, nor is it on the national radar screen. The humble masses are being kept humble on a diet of pablum, right wing propaganda, religious servitude and, to their collective credit, ignorance(which, unbeknown to them, is a “blessing”).

        If “they” even get a chance to elect as president a “ferret” headed(lol), smug, arrogant, celebrity, “rock star” weasel, then shame on us, “We the People.”

        BTW, remember the 1980′s? Downsizing, right sizing, leveraged buyouts w/ asset liquidation, offshore jobs, investments, manufacturing facilities & tax avoidance schemes through maze like revenue streams managed overseas, buyouts, bailouts, and above all, a soft landing via the golden parachute.

        Ahhh, the Reagan Years :[ “Trickle Down.” Now that was a spirited approach!

        Look folks, we’re not about job creation, we’re about keeping the labor pool affordable & “growing” the economy, an unsustainable proposition with predictable, negative outcomes.

        As New Hampshire residents point out to us every time we look at their license plates: Live Free Or Die.”

    • Hadrian999

      read John Locke a little more closely next time

    • rtb61

      The social contract relates to all of the resources of a country, every single last bit. You own nothing unless we say you do and protect it for you. Yours is the lie of hereditary right to own everything and to deny the means of survival to all others whilst they protect and serve those hereditary rights.
      Reality is, that delusion only last as long as the impoverished majority allow it, before reacting violently to it and culling that psychopathic destructive minority who ludicrously claim the right to prey upon the majority.
      The majority has the right to a subsistence existence, or where the illusion of private ownership is created the fiscal equivalent of it, failure, gives the dispossessed the right to seek redress by what ever means is necessary, including the elimination of those that would deny them existence. As has been repeated in history time and time again.

  • http://buzzcoastin.posterous.com BuzzCoastin

    When the “government” stops redistributing property to the wealthy and their corporations through bailouts, tax breaks, incentive payments and special regulations, then I think you might have an argument. Right now We the People are very far from quid pro quo compared with the wealthy when it comes to government largess.

    I never entered into any social contract with any government, yet every time I hear from the government its looking for a handout or a hand.

    The fact that the “richest” nation on Earth spends more on weapons than on welfare and education indicates that the priorities of “wee the people” are not being attended to.

    I’ll bet your one of those new state department social bots Jake.

  • 5by5

    This is why this week’s Reel Time with Bill Maher pissed me off. They had on Ed Schultz, some hack/lady who’s the head of the political news division of ABC, and fmr. Republican Chairman and aggressive liar, Michael Steele.

    Now it’s wicked clear which side Schultz and Steele were going to fall on, but the ABC News Director chick was what torked me off, because (in principle) she’s the one who’s “supposed” to be bringing the unbiased facts. (I know: begin laughter here).

    But still, they were talking about the budget deficit, and this fool ABC exec pipes up with how “Republicans are going to have to give on DOD spending, but Democrats are going to have to give up on these ‘entitlements’ like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.”

    REALLY?

    First, two of the latter three only encompass 6% of the national budget. The DOD accounts for 55% of the federal budget and they just got a 3.4% spending INCREASE over last year under Congressman Paul “Eddie Muster/JC Penneys Model” Ryan’s cruelty to poor people budget.

    The third, Social Security, DOESN’T IMPACT THE DEFICIT AT ALL. Social Security, in fact, is barred from doing so, BY LAW.

    And yet here’s the person in charge of an entire news division at a major network like ABC who’s not clarifying that FACT, but rather only adding to the confusion by lumping it in with the DOD which DWARFS it, and making it sound like that Public TRUST, into which we’ve all paid OUR MONEY, and which is FULLY FUNDED until 2030, and 80% funded after that (and would have been 100% funded had Ronnie Raygun and Bush the First not illegally dipped into it to off budget finance THEIR Enron accounting tricks) is somehow in the same league with the Defense Department, Homeland Security, and the entire National Intelligence apparatus.

    Gimme a break.

    But there she sits, clarifying NOTHING. And people wonder why the media sucks? She’s the head of the division! And she can’t even get something that BASIC correct, but just falls back on this false equivalency bullshit.

    And Ed Schultz also pointed out that if the Republicans hadn’t resisted universal health care (and if Obama hadn’t been the worst negotiator in the universe and given it away without a fight and barely fighting for a public option) any funding issues with Medicare and Medicaid simply wouldn’t exist.

    Moreover, if you simply let the Bush tax cuts for the uber wealthy expire, then you solve 75% of the funding problem.

    Instead, you have Michael Steele actually sitting there and saying that, and I quote, “Taxes don’t raise revenue.”

    IDIOT! They’ve the only thing that DOES raise revenue! That’s the very definition of what they do!

    And the ABC “News” Director? Just let that falsehood slide right by without objecting to it.

    Lame. Unbelievably LAME.

    Nobody’s asking you to take any side, EXCEPT the side of the TRUTH. And right now, the major corporate news media is so not on the side of the truth, that in the case of Fox News, they actually went to court to preserve their “right” to flat-out LIE to the public (in the Monsanto/Posilac case).

    Pathetic. And an informed public is critical to a functioning Democracy. Without it, you get a guy with a ferret on his head leading the polls for the Republican nomination because he thinks the President of the United States isn’t an American.

    And frankly, on that score, if the media had been doing their job right from the top, and been fair with an analysis, they would have pointed out that of the two candidates for the President in 2008, the only one NOYT eligible by law to run for the Presidency, was John McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone one year before the Congress made an exception for children born in that area to be considered naturalized American citizens.

    The Democrats out of politeness and respect for McCain’s service never called him on that, but the Republicans, happy to go too far, and following their pattern of accusing others of the thing they themselves are guilty of, made the OTHER guy’s supposed lack of citizenship the issue, thus deflecting attention off their candidate, and exploiting some people’s inner racist and sticking to Nixon’s script of the “Southern Strategy”.

  • 5by5

    This is why this week’s Reel Time with Bill Maher pissed me off. They had on Ed Schultz, some hack/lady who’s the head of the political news division of ABC, and fmr. Republican Chairman and aggressive liar, Michael Steele.

    Now it’s wicked clear which side Schultz and Steele were going to fall on, but the ABC News Director chick was what torked me off, because (in principle) she’s the one who’s “supposed” to be bringing the unbiased facts. (I know: begin laughter here).

    But still, they were talking about the budget deficit, and this fool ABC exec pipes up with how “Republicans are going to have to give on DOD spending, but Democrats are going to have to give up on these ‘entitlements’ like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.”

    REALLY?

    First, two of the latter three only encompass 6% of the national budget. The DOD accounts for 55% of the federal budget and they just got a 3.4% spending INCREASE over last year under Congressman Paul “Eddie Muster/JC Penneys Model” Ryan’s cruelty to poor people budget.

    The third, Social Security, DOESN’T IMPACT THE DEFICIT AT ALL. Social Security, in fact, is barred from doing so, BY LAW.

    And yet here’s the person in charge of an entire news division at a major network like ABC who’s not clarifying that FACT, but rather only adding to the confusion by lumping it in with the DOD which DWARFS it, and making it sound like that Public TRUST, into which we’ve all paid OUR MONEY, and which is FULLY FUNDED until 2030, and 80% funded after that (and would have been 100% funded had Ronnie Raygun and Bush the First not illegally dipped into it to off budget finance THEIR Enron accounting tricks) is somehow in the same league with the Defense Department, Homeland Security, and the entire National Intelligence apparatus.

    Gimme a break.

    But there she sits, clarifying NOTHING. And people wonder why the media sucks? She’s the head of the division! And she can’t even get something that BASIC correct, but just falls back on this false equivalency bullshit.

    And Ed Schultz also pointed out that if the Republicans hadn’t resisted universal health care (and if Obama hadn’t been the worst negotiator in the universe and given it away without a fight and barely fighting for a public option) any funding issues with Medicare and Medicaid simply wouldn’t exist.

    Moreover, if you simply let the Bush tax cuts for the uber wealthy expire, then you solve 75% of the funding problem.

    Instead, you have Michael Steele actually sitting there and saying that, and I quote, “Taxes don’t raise revenue.”

    IDIOT! They’ve the only thing that DOES raise revenue! That’s the very definition of what they do!

    And the ABC “News” Director? Just let that falsehood slide right by without objecting to it.

    Lame. Unbelievably LAME.

    Nobody’s asking you to take any side, EXCEPT the side of the TRUTH. And right now, the major corporate news media is so not on the side of the truth, that in the case of Fox News, they actually went to court to preserve their “right” to flat-out LIE to the public (in the Monsanto/Posilac case).

    Pathetic. And an informed public is critical to a functioning Democracy. Without it, you get a guy with a ferret on his head leading the polls for the Republican nomination because he thinks the President of the United States isn’t an American.

    And frankly, on that score, if the media had been doing their job right from the top, and been fair with an analysis, they would have pointed out that of the two candidates for the President in 2008, the only one NOYT eligible by law to run for the Presidency, was John McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone one year before the Congress made an exception for children born in that area to be considered naturalized American citizens.

    The Democrats out of politeness and respect for McCain’s service never called him on that, but the Republicans, happy to go too far, and following their pattern of accusing others of the thing they themselves are guilty of, made the OTHER guy’s supposed lack of citizenship the issue, thus deflecting attention off their candidate, and exploiting some people’s inner racist and sticking to Nixon’s script of the “Southern Strategy”.

    • Rex Vestri

      BRAVO!

      Well said! Absolutely nailed it!

      Also, LOL @ “a guy with a ferret on his head leading the polls for the Republican nomination”.

      Thank you!

    • Andrew

      Psychological projection seems to be the main plank in the Republican Party’s platform.

    • https://twitter.com/#!/MiddleAmericaMS MiddleAmericaMS

      Well said, but one note, the Dems did go to court over McCain’s birthplace & it was found that since its on a US base its on US soil, which at that point everyone dropped the subject. But, Dem politicians & pundits did not make a big deal of it or hardly mentioned it, only us internet news junkies really followed it.

      The way it was handled was extremely different, but the GOP loves a good disinfo smear campaign. Murdoch says that he doesn’t publish things he knows are well proven false, but does use them to create whispering campaigns to hurt his opponents. Clearly he lied in that interview & has no morals or ethics, but its an interesting insight into his & the GOPs & probably Israel’s thinking.

      Unfortunately the GOP has taken-up the old time tested tactic of massive disinfo propaganda as their main effort of communication & is very successful with it. Fox “News” is basically our Soviet-like Pravda.

    • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

      Nailed it. Hole in one.

  • Rex Vestri

    BRAVO!

    Well said! Absolutely spot-on correct!

    Also, LOL @ “a guy with a ferret on his head leading the polls for the Republican nomination”.

    Thank you!

  • Alis

    You and 5by5, and people like you are the very reason I fucking love this website.

  • Anonymous

    What you refer to as “redistribution” is referred to by civilized people as “taking care of our own”.

    Throwing your weakest and most vulnerable to the wolves is not civilization. It is barbarism.

  • Alis

    FYI: The Business Insider article this article points to (http://www.businessinsider.com/countries-most-entitlement-spending-2011-4?op=1) seems to say that the US is actually 25th of 34, with social spending at 16.2% of GDP. I believe this article was written before the original Business Insider article was amended. I can’t seem to find the actual OECD list, unfortunately. Still, the US is quite low for being such a “wealthy” country.

    • https://twitter.com/#!/MiddleAmericaMS MiddleAmericaMS

      Yes, its ninth from the bottom it currently says. I think they were probably pressured to change it.

  • Alis

    FYI: The Business Insider article this article points to (http://www.businessinsider.com/countries-most-entitlement-spending-2011-4?op=1) seems to say that the US is actually 25th of 34, with social spending at 16.2% of GDP. I believe this article was written before the original Business Insider article was amended. I can’t seem to find the actual OECD list, unfortunately. Still, the US is quite low for being such a “wealthy” country.

  • Andrew

    Psychological projection seems to be the main plank in the Republican Party’s platform.

  • Hadrian999

    read John Locke a little more closely next time

  • Matt McDonald

    and if the wealthy would get off their stingy fat asses and create some jobs (instead of figuring out how to avoid paying taxes and hiding their money in foreign tax shelters), we wouldn’t even NEED most of these social welfare programs!

    • quartz99

      As long as their profit structure is predicated in part on employing and paying as few people as possible as little as possible, that will never happen.

  • Matt McDonald

    and if the wealthy would get off their stingy fat asses and create some jobs (instead of figuring out how to avoid paying taxes and hiding their money in foreign tax shelters), we wouldn’t even NEED most of these social welfare programs!

  • SouthPawPolitico

    Spot on!

    End of story(sadly enough). The subject of the redistribution of wealth(“accomplished” in the form of a graduated income tax) and economic justice(“accomplished” thru the creation of the welfare state, Social Security Insurance, unemployment insurance, Medicaid & Medicare) is not on anyone’s agenda, nor is it on the national radar screen. The humble masses are being kept humble on a diet of pablum, right wing propaganda, religious servitude and, to their collective credit, ignorance(which, unbeknown to them, is a “blessing”).

    If “they” even get a chance to elect as president a “ferret” headed(lol), smug, arrogant, celebrity, “rock star” weasel, then shame on us, “We the People.”

    BTW, remember the 1980′s? Downsizing, right sizing, leveraged buyouts w/ asset liquidation, offshore jobs, investments, manufacturing facilities & tax avoidance schemes through maze like revenue streams managed overseas, buyouts, bailouts, and above all, a soft landing via the golden parachute.

    Ahhh, the Reagan Years :[ “Trickle Down.” Now that was a spirited approach!

    Look folks, we’re not about job creation, we’re about keeping the labor pool affordable & “growing” the economy, an unsustainable proposition with predictable, negative outcomes.

    As New Hampshire residents point out to us every time we look at their license plates: Live Free Or Die.”

  • Anonymous

    The social contract relates to all of the resources of a country, every single last bit. You own nothing unless we say you do and protect it for you. Yours is the lie of hereditary right to own everything and to deny the means of survival to all others whilst they protect and serve those hereditary rights.
    Reality is, that delusion only last as long as the impoverished majority allow it, before reacting violently to it and culling that psychopathic destructive minority who ludicrously claim the right to prey upon the majority.
    The majority has the right to a subsistence existence, or where the illusion of private ownership is created the fiscal equivalent of it, failure, gives the dispossessed the right to seek redress by what ever means is necessary, including the elimination of those that would deny them existence. As has been repeated in history time and time again.

  • bwood

    Update: I used some information that has since been corrected on the original site, Business Insider. It turns out that the United States spends 16.2% of our GDP on social programs, NOT 7.2%.

    i guess you didnt read that far before you posted this, it was in small print at the bottom of the page so i could see how you missed it.

  • bwood

    Update: I used some information that has since been corrected on the original site, Business Insider. It turns out that the United States spends 16.2% of our GDP on social programs, NOT 7.2%.

    i guess you didnt read that far before you posted this, it was in small print at the bottom of the page so i could see how you missed it.

  • Tuna Ghost

    As a very well-informed man once said, it all boils down to whether or not you give a shit. Whether or not you give a shit about whether or not the elderly widow on the other side of town can afford her meds or is going to die sooner than she has to. Whether or not a family living below the poverty line can afford to take their children to the doctor. Whether or not an invalid has to live like a beggar.

  • Tuna Ghost

    As a very well-informed man once said, it all boils down to whether or not you give a shit. Whether or not you give a shit about whether or not the elderly widow on the other side of town can afford her meds or is going to die sooner than she has to. Whether or not a family living below the poverty line can afford to take their children to the doctor. Whether or not an invalid has to live like a beggar.

    • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

      Amen sista. Some of us feel that we as a culture are measured not by how we treat the best off among us…but by how we treat the worst off among us. Others feel that the only measurement that matters is account size and that anything else is irrelevant semantics. I obviously look at the world the first way…and find my nation desperately wanting for relevance and decency. I understand that the other point of view exists…I just hold it in complete contempt…which isn’t any better than the way the other side looks at me. I don’t like the idea of becoming the countries on television that used to be the backhanded lesson about the superiority of our ‘way of life’…but it seems like all too many people are willing to line up and take the necessary steps to get there…all based on the thin promise of some invisible reward that might come later if we all just follow along.

  • http://twitter.com/MiddleAmericaMS MiddleAmericaMS

    Well said, but one note, the Dems did go to court over McCain’s birthplace & it was found that since its on a US base its on US soil, which at that point everyone dropped the subject. But, Dem politicians & pundits did not make a big deal of it or hardly mentioned it, only us internet news junkies really followed it.

    The way it was handled was extremely different, but the GOP loves a good disinfo smear campaign. Murdoch says that he doesn’t publish things he knows are well proven false, but does use them to create whispering campaigns to hurt his opponents. Clearly he lied in that interview & has no morals or ethics, but its an interesting insight into his & the GOPs & probably Israel’s thinking.

    Unfortunately the GOP has taken-up the old time tested tactic of massive disinfo propaganda as their main effort of communication & is very successful with it. Fox “News” is basically our Soviet-like Pravda.

  • http://twitter.com/MiddleAmericaMS MiddleAmericaMS

    Yes, its ninth from the bottom it currently says. I think they were probably pressured to change it.

  • http://twitter.com/MiddleAmericaMS MiddleAmericaMS

    Yes, its ninth from the bottom it currently says. I think they were probably pressured to change it.

  • Anonymous

    As long as their profit structure is predicated in part on employing and paying as few people as possible as little as possible, that will never happen.

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    Amen sista. Some of us feel that we as a culture are measured not by how we treat the best off among us…but by how we treat the worst off among us. Others feel that the only measurement that matters is account size and that anything else is irrelevant semantics. I obviously look at the world the first way…and find my nation desperately wanting for relevance and decency. I understand that the other point of view exists…I just hold it in complete contempt…which isn’t any better than the way the other side looks at me. I don’t like the idea of becoming the countries on television that used to be the backhanded lesson about the superiority of our ‘way of life’…but it seems like all too many people are willing to line up and take the necessary steps to get there…all based on the thin promise of some invisible reward that might come later if we all just follow along.

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    Nailed it. Hole in one.

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    More relevant than the exact percentage spent on social programs…since our enormous economy makes even our modest percentage into a pretty vast sum…is what we actually manage to accomplish with that money…which is almost trivial by comparison to what is managed with far less in other countries. We complain that govt can’t get the job done…but we largely ignore that the opposing ideologies create a situation where govt is literally built to fail and thereby prove it can’t get the job done. Govt can work…and does work elsewhere. It gets more bang for the buck than the private sector when its focused on service instead of profit…and this model works everywhere in the world…except here…where we make sure it isn’t allowed to work for fear that people might begin to expect it to work more often and more honestly. Its time to kill the lie of govt uselessness and start rebuilding useful govt…and theres no shortage of blueprints for success…we just have turn Fox news commentators off long enough to actually read something for ourselves.

  • http://voxmagi-necessarywords.blogspot.com/ VoxMagi

    More relevant than the exact percentage spent on social programs…since our enormous economy makes even our modest percentage into a pretty vast sum…is what we actually manage to accomplish with that money…which is almost trivial by comparison to what is managed with far less in other countries. We complain that govt can’t get the job done…but we largely ignore that the opposing ideologies create a situation where govt is literally built to fail and thereby prove it can’t get the job done. Govt can work…and does work elsewhere. It gets more bang for the buck than the private sector when its focused on service instead of profit…and this model works everywhere in the world…except here…where we make sure it isn’t allowed to work for fear that people might begin to expect it to work more often and more honestly. Its time to kill the lie of govt uselessness and start rebuilding useful govt…and theres no shortage of blueprints for success…we just have turn Fox news commentators off long enough to actually read something for ourselves.

  • MrMan

    I read the actual OECD report. I didn’t see anything that indicated the US was “dead last” in social spending. I did see some other alarming statistics about income inequality (we’re 4th overall), but nothing about being dead last in social spending. Either I read the report wrong, or whomever wrote the above article used some creative reading techniques. Did I miss something?

  • MrMan

    I read the actual OECD report. I didn’t see anything that indicated the US was “dead last” in social spending. I did see some other alarming statistics about income inequality (we’re 4th overall), but nothing about being dead last in social spending. Either I read the report wrong, or whomever wrote the above article used some creative reading techniques. Did I miss something?

  • West4567

    There’s an erroneous claim from 5by5 that defense comprises 52% of the budget. It’s actually $738 billion, out of a $3.7 trillion budget, or 20%. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html?src=tp

    BuzzCoastin also errs, saying “the ‘richest’ nation on Earth spends more on weapons than on welfare and education.” Use the same chart cited above to see that the combined federal welfare programs cost more than defense, even if you DON’T count Social Security or Medicare as welfare programs. And this does not count welfare at the state and local levels.

    Total education spending by government is $880 billion. See http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_education_spending_20.html#usgs30220
    The $880 billion does not include private spending, so it does not include the billions that individuals spend on college educations. It’s considerably more than the cost of defense.

  • West4567

    There’s an erroneous claim from 5by5 that defense comprises 52% of the budget. It’s actually $738 billion, out of a $3.7 trillion budget, or 20%. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html?src=tp

    BuzzCoastin also errs, saying “the ‘richest’ nation on Earth spends more on weapons than on welfare and education.” Use the same chart cited above to see that the combined federal welfare programs cost more than defense, even if you DON’T count Social Security or Medicare as welfare programs. And this does not count welfare at the state and local levels.

    Total education spending by government is $880 billion. See http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_education_spending_20.html#usgs30220
    The $880 billion does not include private spending, so it does not include the billions that individuals spend on college educations. It’s considerably more than the cost of defense.

  • West4567

    Whoops. Caught another one.
    5by5 said, “if you simply let the Bush tax cuts for the uber wealthy expire, then you solve 75% of the funding problem.”

    Repealing the tax cuts for the wealthy would bring in $800 billion over the next ten years, or $80 billion per year. This year alone, our “funding problem” is $1.6 trillion, or twenty times the amount of the wealthy’s tax break.

    Roll back all the Bush tax cuts (those for the rich AND those for the poor) and you only increase revenues to $320 billion, still only about 1/6 of the “funding problem”

  • West4567

    Whoops. Caught another one.
    5by5 said, “if you simply let the Bush tax cuts for the uber wealthy expire, then you solve 75% of the funding problem.”

    Repealing the tax cuts for the wealthy would bring in $800 billion over the next ten years, or $80 billion per year. This year alone, our “funding problem” is $1.6 trillion, or twenty times the amount of the wealthy’s tax break.

    Roll back all the Bush tax cuts (those for the rich AND those for the poor) and you only increase revenues to $320 billion, still only about 1/6 of the “funding problem”

  • West4567

    OMG, still one more!

    5by5 (obviously on a roll) contends, “Social Security, DOESN’T IMPACT THE DEFICIT AT ALL. Social Security, in fact, is barred from doing so, BY LAW.”

    This is simply not true. The Social Security trust fund exists in the form of government bonds. These bonds were provided to the fund because the revenue from SS was used as general revenue; in other words, they spent it on other stuff. Spending Social Security revenue actually decreased the deficit. At least, it did until earlier this year, when the trust fund began paying out more than it was taking in. To the extent that the trust fund cannot pay the program’s recipients, Congress will have to pay off the bonds (increasing the deficit) and ultimately, pay Social Security recipients out of general funds (REALLY increasing the deficit). All this is if it doesn’t get fixed. But it will be.

  • West4567

    OMG, still one more!

    5by5 (obviously on a roll) contends, “Social Security, DOESN’T IMPACT THE DEFICIT AT ALL. Social Security, in fact, is barred from doing so, BY LAW.”

    This is simply not true. The Social Security trust fund exists in the form of government bonds. These bonds were provided to the fund because the revenue from SS was used as general revenue; in other words, they spent it on other stuff. Spending Social Security revenue actually decreased the deficit. At least, it did until earlier this year, when the trust fund began paying out more than it was taking in. To the extent that the trust fund cannot pay the program’s recipients, Congress will have to pay off the bonds (increasing the deficit) and ultimately, pay Social Security recipients out of general funds (REALLY increasing the deficit). All this is if it doesn’t get fixed. But it will be.

21